4 ms·
There's a spectrum, obviously, but the post I was responding to, as phrased, seemed to be oversimplifying and basically arguing against letting the invisible ha
by jbooth 13y ago
There's a spectrum, obviously, but the post I was responding to, as phrased, seemed to be oversimplifying and basically arguing against letting the invisible hand, defined as a bunch of selfish a-holes creating market forces, work at all. (The poster clarified downthread that that's not what they meant, don't want to misrepresent them here.)
I don't disagree with your conclusion about political structure, but if we're talking about pure collective planning with no reliance on private allocation of capital, that's never actually been done with a democratic political structure anyplace larger than a kibbutz. Democratic socialism, IMO, is much closer to well-regulated capitalism than it is to communism.
- mattmanser 13y agoObviously? This was your assertion: State-allocated capital without a private finance sector has failed miserably It is completely wrong. It is a lie. You weren't obviously talking about a spectrum, you were talking crap.
- jbooth 13y agoCan you show me any success stories of absolute communist states with no private sector? Just one, maybe? Who's lying? The spectrum comment referred to the socialism/communism terminology, with socialism generally seen as involving a heavily-regulated free market and large public sector, as opposed to communism where the private sector is outlawed. A spectrum.
- Florin_Andrei 13y agoI believe it is necessary at this point to emphasize that this is a discussion between real people, where logic is a bit fuzzy, and metaphor is sometimes employed. It is not a computer code that would fail to compile if even one detail was not true in a literal fashion.